Barr v. County of Albany, 50 N.Y.2d 247 (1980)

A search warrant authorizes only the search of premises and does not authorize the arrest of individuals found there; therefore, law enforcement officers executing a search warrant are not immune from liability for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment if they arrest individuals present without independent probable cause.

Summary

This case addresses whether a search warrant provides immunity to law enforcement officers from liability for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment of individuals present on the premises during the search. Plaintiffs, attending a party, were arrested during a drug raid pursuant to a search warrant but were later released. They sued the county, sheriff, and deputy sheriffs for unlawful arrest. The Court of Appeals held that a search warrant does not authorize arrests, and the deputy sheriffs were not immune from liability. The court also determined that the county could assume liability for the deputies’ actions via local law, but the sheriff was not liable for negligent training due to lack of evidentiary support.

Facts

Plaintiffs attended a party at the “Ordway House” in Albany County on August 14, 1977. Deputy Sheriffs, accompanied by the New York State Police, conducted a “drug raid” at approximately 11:00 p.m. pursuant to a search warrant for the premises. Approximately 50 attendees, including the plaintiffs, were arrested and charged with criminal possession of marihuana. Charges were later dismissed during arraignment.

Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued Albany County, the Sheriff, and the Deputy Sheriffs for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. Special Term denied motions to dismiss by the County and Sheriff, but the Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaints against them. Special Term denied the Deputy Sheriffs’ motion for summary judgment, which was affirmed by a divided Appellate Division. The plaintiffs and Deputy Sheriffs appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a search warrant, authorizing the search of certain premises but not the arrest of persons found thereon, affords protection to those obligated to enforce it from liability for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.
2. Whether a county can assume liability for the tortious acts of its Deputy Sheriffs.
3. Whether the Sheriff can be held responsible in negligence for failure to train and instruct properly his deputies.

Holding

1. Yes, because a search warrant sanctions the entrance by law enforcement officers upon private property to conduct a search within the confines of the warrant, it by no means lends judicial approval to the arrests of those persons found thereon.
2. Yes, because a county may, by legislative enactment, assume responsibility for the tortious acts of its Deputy Sheriffs as distinguished from the acts of the Sheriff himself.
3. No, because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate, by means of evidentiary facts, that a plenary trial is required with respect to their allegations.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that a search warrant and an arrest warrant serve distinct functions. Quoting Broughton v. State of New York, the court emphasized that arrests without a warrant are presumed unlawful, placing the burden on the defendant to prove otherwise. The court stated, “Whenever there has been an arrest and imprisonment without a warrant, the officer has acted extrajudicially and the presumption arises that such an arrest and imprisonment are unlawful… [W]here the arrest or imprisonment is extrajudicial, that is, without legal process or color of legal authority, it is not necessary to allege want of probable cause in a false imprisonment action… Indeed, the burden is on the defendant to prove the opposite.”

The court further held that Albany County could assume liability for the tortious acts of its Deputy Sheriffs through local law, distinguishing this from the constitutional prohibition against holding the county responsible for the acts of the Sheriff himself. The court cited McMahon v. Michaelian to support this distinction. The court clarified, “[S]ection 345 of the [Westchester County Administrative] code strictly complies with section 13 of article XIII of the Constitution. Its first paragraph imposes liability upon the county for acts of the Sheriffs appointees committed in the discharge of their official duties and its second paragraph merely restates the constitutional direction that the county not be made responsible for the acts of the Sheriff. The assumption by Westchester County of liability for the acts of the employees of the Sheriff is not prohibited by the Constitution, which merely mandates that a county ‘shall never be made responsible for the acts of the sheriff,’ for under the provisions of the code he still continues to be responsible for his acts.”

Regarding the Sheriff’s liability, the court affirmed that while a Sheriff cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of deputies performing criminal justice functions, the Sheriff could be liable for their own negligence. However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant a trial on the issue of negligent training and supervision, as they only provided conclusory affidavits without demonstrating a lack of proper law enforcement training of the deputies. There was no duty for the Sheriff to be present at each and every instance his deputies are performing law enforcement functions.